The Assault on the Bill of Rights

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts…

… All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.-George Washington

George Washington warned, back in 1796, that there would be factions intent on destroying this country, from both the inside and the outside. Today, our freedoms are under constant assault.

New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, supporter of the unconstitutional SAFE Act, threatened to remove sheriffs from their jobs if they did not stop exercising their First Amendment rights in opposition to his law.

Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Lawrence Torcello (Rochester Institute of Technology) says “With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.”

Criminally negligent? For disagreeing over an issue?

He cites the conviction of 6 scientists in Italy who failed to predict an earthquake back in 2009. Three hundred nine people were killed in the quake, and I think the government was desperate to blame someone.

But I think the broader point that Mr. Torcello misses is that predicting future events, such as catastrophes coming as a result of “global warming”, is a very difficult affair. After all, the weatherman has trouble predicting the weather two days from now. So, if these doom and gloom scenarios that these “scientists” offer (remember, Mr. Torcello is a Philosophy professor), should they be held criminally negligent for inciting fear and panic?

This is what happens when one side can’t produce results in debate. They demand the opposition be silenced.

Look at Obama on Obamacare. He claims Obamacare is “settled law”. Those who are moving through the court system would disagree, but again, it is the Left’s way of saying “shut up” when they can’t debate on merit or facts.

But here is where things start getting nefarious. Our children are slowly being brainwashed into eliminating the Bill of Rights.

In the Bryant School District in Arkansas, sixth grade students were given a worksheet in which the Bill of Rights had been determined to be ‘outdated”, and the students were to decide what two amendments should be repealed, and what they should be replaced with. Mind you, they had to come up with two, and it appears that “none of them” would be an acceptable answer. Follow this link to read it for yourself: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/359714#ixzz2gv8VWbq5

The lesson is that rights are not natural. We do not have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech or religion, self defense, unreasonable searches, et al unless the government says we do.It’s an idea that permeates every level of government, every tyrant at every level.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio openly said he believes in the heavy hand of government.

Washington Governor, taking his cue from the President, decided to just unilaterally suspend the State’s death penalty, much like Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.

The President himself has been altering the “settled” Obamacare law by pushing back deadlines and requirements, and handing out exemptions to his donors.

In the last three cases, the executive has done a run around Congress (or legislature), and while Congress bitches and kvetches about it, they do nothing.This is how tyranny is born.

President Obama has said he has a phone and a pen, and he will move his agenda forward.

The Founding Fathers thought that it would be the government who protected these individual rights, but it is not the nature of government to protect the individual. The government will do what it feels is best for the group, even at the expense of the individual, and whatever it needs to do to grow in power.. That’s why the Second Amendment is embattled. They feel the group, the government needs to be protected from the individual, not the other way around.